The argument right now is whether #BlackLivesMatter or #AllLivesMatter, wait we can't forget #BlueLivesMatter in our argument.
Let's break it down so we can choose the RIGHT side of this argument.
There are several articles (just google the hashtag) that state that the hashtag and political project Black lives matter was founded by Patrisse Cullors, Alicia Garza, and Opal Tometi after the acquittal of George Zimmermen. These words were intended to highlight the economic, political, and social needs of Blacks in America. It's key to realize that the movement is made up of individual groups thus what they are about and the way they go about it can, and probably is, different.
It is also key to realize that #BlackLivesMatter is not exclusive. It does not mean that only Black lives matter; it's meant to highlight to everyone not to forget that Black lives do indeed matter in the large economic, political, and social atmosphere of the United States. "The conception that all we're mad about is police and policing is a strong misconception," Umi Selah, co-director of Dream Defenders in Miami, Florida.
The hashtag actually contains the unspoken word "too." If #BlackLivesMatter actually contained the spoken word "too" would we really need to have this argument of hashtags? Thank you Ryan W. Miller, "Black Lives Matter: A primer on what it is and what it stands for", USA Today and the various posts and articles that I have read on Facebook regarding the subject.
Now #AllLivesMatter was created in response to #BlackLivesMatter. It sounds like a very inclusive slogan that implies that everyone deserves to live, but it does not highlight any group. Again, that is the definition of "inclusion "- the action or state of including or of being included within a group or structure (thanks Google). But sometimes when there is something that needs to be highlighted, grouping that issue in with everything else does not allow for that issue to really be addressed.
While it is very true that All lives matter, the spotlight (good or bad) is not being shined on All. Unfortunately, #AllLivesMatter is an attempt to to ignore the issue of economic, political, and social disparities that the Black American community is now facing, and always has. Thank you Tyler Huckabee, "The Problem with Saying 'All Lives Matter'," Relevant and Kevin Roose, "The next time someone says 'all lives matter,' show them these 5 paragraphs", Fusion for the insight.
#BlueLivesMatter originated in NYC back in December of 2014 to help law enforcement officers and their families during their times of need after the killings of NYPD officers Rafael Romas and Wenjian Liu. We all know that police officers put their lives on the line everyday thus ambushing them is not the way to get justice or understanding for the actual issues at hand.
The notion that acknowledging that Black lives matter means you can't support Blue lives is nonsensical. "...the community and police do not have to be a odds!!! It's imperative that we work together and not continue to fuel tensions!" states Scot Esdaile, President of Connecticut's NAACP.
It can be argued that like #AllLivesMatter, #BlueLivesMatter is just a way to ignore the true issue of the inequality that Blacks face in America.
The Bible tells us how to handle this debate, actually any debate were a true difference exist, in Romans 14:1-3. The New International Version states "Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. 2 One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them."
If that was hard to understand the English Standard Version states "As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. 2 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. 3 Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him."
Or maybe you identify more with the King James Version that states "Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him."
No matter what version you prefer it clearly states it's NOT our job to judge...ANYONE. Thus there really is no reason why being for one hashtag means you are against another hashtag because God accepts us all. But before we blindly or unknowingly support anything we must first RESEARCH it so we can acknowledge the true meaning behind it.